4E, the Grind and Why I Play

[Harlekin]

Most significantly, at character/campaign creation. You can look at different mechanics and see which ones appeal to you, try something new and different, or hang particular role-playing quirks off of the mechanical quirks.

And then, at least in 3e, every time you leveled up (though, practically, that could have stood to be improved).



This is a flaw of individual effects, yeah. But it's not a flaw of including dramatically different PC abilities. Which is part of the baby-bathwater thing. You can improve on what 3e had without making everything work under the same umbrella mechanics. And you should.

I am probably misunderstanding you, but it sounds to me like you're saying that distinct mechanics are good not because they give more choices during the game but simply because distinct mechanics are good?

In practice didn't 3e result in a lot of class mechanics that made playing a character an exercise of following a certain rote in every combat? Do you really think it is preferably to have a system where each character has meaningful options in every encounter?

I think I'm starting to understand one problem for the acceptance of D&D:
When thinking about playing a game, we think (dream) about all the characters we would like to play. It is fun to imagine different types of characters and the more distinct such dreams are supported by a game, the more fun we have thinking about playing in such a game.
D&D doesn't seem to support many such dreams, especially to players with little experience with the system, to whom the abilities seem very uniform.

When actually playing in a game, we play the same character for a long time. So having a wide range of things to do with that character in game is more important than which other cool character I could play.

I guess this is an other example how D&D plays better than it reads.

 

[Jack99]

Tell me who considers this good design, and I will welcome a spirited discussion about it.

It's elegant and simple, but elegant and simple and holistically GOOD are very, very different things.

I like cooking, but fast food is more elegant and simple.

Seriously, who would in their right mind call fast food elegant?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Seriously, who would in their right mind call fast food elegant?

Co-ordinating the chaos of millions of angry, rushed consumers is an excersize in herding cats. Any team that can do it is dancing a waltz more elegant than the stars in the heavens. Likewise, simple mechanics make complex things easy to understand and adjudicate, which is elegance.

I am probably misunderstanding you, but it sounds to me like you're saying that distinct mechanics are good not because they give more choices during the game but simply because distinct mechanics are good?

More likely, I'm misunderstanding you. Yes, distinct mechanics are good because they give more choice. It's not the only reason they're good, but it's one of (if not the) major one.

In practice didn't 3e result in a lot of class mechanics that made playing a character an exercise of following a certain rote in every combat? Do you really think it is preferably to have a system where each character has meaningful options in every encounter?

I don't think 3e combats ever really devolved to the level of "pattern play," mostly because they could be so binary. But that has little to do with the level of mechanical diversity in character abilities.

I think I'm starting to understand one problem for the acceptance of D&D:
When thinking about playing a game, we think (dream) about all the characters we would like to play. It is fun to imagine different types of characters and the more distinct such dreams are supported by a game, the more fun we have thinking about playing in such a game.
D&D doesn't seem to support many such dreams, especially to players with little experience with the system, to whom the abilities seem very uniform.

That's a potential problem for newbies coming in from a certain angle, yeah.

When actually playing in a game, we play the same character for a long time. So having a wide range of things to do with that character in game is more important than which other cool character I could play.

I guess this is an other example how D&D plays better than it reads.

Mmm....in my experience, a party who used diverse mechanics played better than a party that all used the same mechanics. The interactions and strategies were different, they evolved, and they changed against different challenges as both the original player learned them, and the party learned them.

Variety is a good thing, in moderation. 4e goes too far with homogeneity on that level, in my opinion.

 

[AngryMojo]

Co-ordinating the chaos of millions of angry, rushed consumers is an excersize in herding cats. Any team that can do it is dancing a waltz more elegant than the stars in the heavens. Likewise, simple mechanics make complex things easy to understand and adjudicate, which is elegance.

This I'll completely agree with you. The food may not be particularly tasty or nutritious, but the mere fact that I can order a hamburger at McDonalds and in 30 seconds, I've got it on my tray indicates a very well-oiled machine behind the counter.

 

[cdrcjsn]

I've dabbled with 4e but it hasn't caught my imagination. I started playing in a campaign with KotS, but after two sessions I was just not into it. I find that I personally don't care for the combat roles. While you can see that such roles have been part of the game for years, to me it just feels like something that had been addressed organically on a unique basis by each individual group is now something forced.

You've said that you've only dabbled, so it might not be that apparent, but the roles are not set in stone.

Right now in the RPGA LFR campaign, I have:
* 10th level Genasi Warlord/Wizard that acts more like a controller than a leader
* 8th level Warforged (Gondsman) Fighter that multi-classed into cleric and has acted as a healer at tables without one (has abilities that can heal others, 2 encounter, 1 daily).
* 8th level Wizard that can outdamage some strikers that she's played with.
* 3rd level Paladin Archer that does as much damage as a striker.

So it might be a matter of systems mastery (I've been playing longer than most), but the roles are not as stratified as some might assume just because certain classes have been designated as falling under a particular role.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Those are all variations on the "damage + effect" formula, though. "Damage + heal" and "damage + buff" isn't as significant a choice as "damage, or buff, or scry, or heal?"

I disagree here. Sure, there is often (not even always) a "constant" - deal damage to the powers. But the Effects can just not be treated as if they are all the same, and in fact they are exactly the choice "damage, buff, scry or heal" you are talking about. The only choice "taken away" from characters is the choice between a Scry and Fireball or the choice between Bull's Strength and Purge Invisibility. (Of course, whether that was actually a choice or just a reminder: "Put it on a scroll" depends on edition.)

Your most basic choices are often:
- Deal more damage
- Debuff an enemy (put a condition on him)
- Buff an ally (give a bonus to attack, damage, save, defense for certain circumstances)
- Heal
- Defend (move to protect an ally and make you a better target then him.)
- Change the Battlefield (move around foes or allies, create area effects)
- Wait for a better situation. (Do nothing fancy but a basic or at-will attack.)

Many of these option also allow you keep dealing damage, but you still have to go through the same decision process you went through earlier.

A more specific example: The 3E Wizard had a limited amount of spells. He wanted to use them when it counted and be conservative otherwise (often leading to the "alibi crossbow shooting".). So there were rounds where he didn't do anything, until there arised a situation where he had a good opening - maybe they identified an enemy spellcaster that needed a Dispel Magic, or a Hobgoblin Formation that warranted a Fireball, or allow the Fighter to Fly so he can get to a flying enemy, or cast Sleep on a group of Kobolds in front of him.
The 4E Wizards major difference is that he uses one of his at-will powers when he doesn't see a need for one of his encounter or daily powers. In either case, the Wizard used up only one resource he won't get back: His actions per round. But the 4E Wizard still gets a chance to inflict damage.

The 3E Cleric and 4E Cleric don't really change at all in that regard - if there wasn't a need to cast a spell in 3E, the Cleric could make a melee (rarely: ranged) attack.
There is still one significant difference - besides the fact that you always get a chance to deal damage: Even your "non-special" action fits to your character archetype. Wizards don't shoot crossbows, they shoot magic missiles (that's only a thematic, not a tactical difference), or they shoot small fireballs or freezing rays or confusing illusions at their enemies (which is a thematic and a tactical difference - fitting both their thematic archetype and their mechanical role.) Clerics don't just attack with their Mace, they grant their allies a bonus granted by their divin powers (a thematic and tactical difference against, according to archetype and mechanical role.)

Of course there is nothing per se wrong with "non-actions" for certain character types (if you are the kind of player that likes to delay his actions and don't get to roll dice ), but there is also nothing wrong with taking actions every round and some of them having more potential impact since you're using your class abilities. The tactical considerations are still the same.

 

[itliaf]

- The Grind: there's tons and tons of threads on this. Really, there's a lot of easy fixes for this subject. Need some links or ideas, let me know.

Hey neuronphaser, I am collecting opinions on this issue to try and address the 1.5-2 hour combats in my 4e game (5 man party of 14th level). Any links you have would be appreciated.

 

[timbannock]

Hey neuronphaser, I am collecting opinions on this issue to try and address the 1.5-2 hour combats in my 4e game (5 man party of 14th level). Any links you have would be appreciated.

Lot's of love here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/254630-stalker0s-guide-anti-grind.html

Also:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/248454-difference.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...combat-objectives-other-than-kill-em-all.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-ponies-why-dms-fault-about-combat-grind.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-what-ive-learned-about-encounter-design.html


Search for "grind" and "RPGnet" to find similar threads there


Finally, I can't find the link, but if you're better with Google, look for either a blog post or Wizards article by Mike Mearls about combat against Solos. It specifically talks about the White Dragon in Kobold Hall and explains a ton of ideas of how to change up the setting to make the fight more interesting. This was one of the most important things I've ever read in how to change up encounter design in 4e with specific examples, and colors how I run things in every game now.

 

[qstor]

You didn't address anything else specifically, so what else is eating at your liking the new edition?

Not to "thread jack" Anthony's thread but I wanted to respond to that question.

1. Class Same-ness. I looked at some of the powers for various classes and even at higher levels they seemed to do the same amount to damage. 2d8, 2d6 psionic, cold whatever.

2. Minions.

3. Skill challenges.

4. Extremely difficult to convert to prior editions.

5. Junking prior settings in favor of a default 4e setting.

Mike

 

[catsclaw227]

Lot's of love here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/254630-stalker0s-guide-anti-grind.html

Excellent guide. And Rel's list of 4e changes to deal with grind is great as well, but I can't find it compiled somewhere in a single post or document. As far as I know, it's scattered throughout a rather long thread.

Finally, I can't find the link, but if you're better with Google, look for either a blog post or Wizards article by Mike Mearls about combat against Solos. It specifically talks about the White Dragon in Kobold Hall and explains a ton of ideas of how to change up the setting to make the fight more interesting. This was one of the most important things I've ever read in how to change up encounter design in 4e with specific examples, and colors how I run things in every game now.

mearls: Solo Monsters and the Risk of Boredom

I think this is what you were looking for?